If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Before I bother with any of your other idiocies, I will take a moment to inform you that I am Jewish, and having you call me a Nazi is about as offensive as you can get. You may want to rethink that in your next reply.

I know you are Jewish but you have no problem panting with as broad a brush a possible inferring the Western Liberialism is equalivant to Soviet Communism. It isn't, but since that is the brush you chose to use then I certainly can paint a Conservative as a Fascist. Afterall you both share such common traits as Nationalism, Militarism, Corporatism, Irrationalism and Mythicism, plus a distain for Liberalism and Communism.

This is the danger of a broad brush O and if you want to use it and expect apologies from others for doing the same then it simply shows your lack of character not mine...

I know you are Jewish but you have no problem panting with as broad a brush a possible inferring the Western Liberialism is equalivant to Soviet Communism. It isn't, but since that is the brush you chose to use then I certainly can paint a Conservative as a Fascist. Afterall you both share such common traits as Nationalism, Militarism, Corporatism, Irrationalism and Mythicism, plus a distain for Liberalism and Communism.

This is the danger of a broad brush O and if you want to use it and expect apologies from others for doing the same then it simply shows your lack of character not mine...

The correct response when you inadvertently say something offensive is an apology. If, however, your intent was to be as offensive as possible, and it clearly was your intent, then you try to justify it with the kind of blather that you wrote above. I hope that it was worth it, and enjoy posting elsewhere.

The correct response when you inadvertently say something offensive is an apology. If, however, your intent was to be as offensive as possible, and it clearly was your intent, then you try to justify it with the kind of blather that you wrote above. I hope that it was worth it, and enjoy posting elsewhere.

Thair's some people you jus' cain't reach.

What do you call an arrogant bully that can never admit it when he's wrong? Mr. President.

I know you are Jewish but you have no problem panting with as broad a brush a possible inferring the Western Liberialism is equalivant to Soviet Communism. It isn't, but since that is the brush you chose to use then I certainly can paint a Conservative as a Fascist. Afterall you both share such common traits as Nationalism, Militarism, Corporatism, Irrationalism and Mythicism, plus a distain for Liberalism and Communism.

This is the danger of a broad brush O and if you want to use it and expect apologies from others for doing the same then it simply shows your lack of character not mine...

PeterS doesn't seem to know much about fascism. He cites Nationalism, but conservatives aren't Nationalists, we're Constitutionalists. Fascists sublimate the rule of law to the "National Will" or some other means of sanitizing the whims of the dictator and his party. This is the opposite of Constitutional protections and limits on government. His other examples are equally invalid:

Militarism: Conservatives don't support the militarization of society, which is what fascists demand. We oppose the creation of paramilitary organizations that impose their will on the public. Fascism creates labor battalions, propaganda collectives and a host of other militarized agencies which channel the collective efforts of the people into acting in concert with the goals of the ruling party. Our "militarism" is support for a military that is strong enough to protect our interests, but balanced by other forces (including armed individuals), so that it cannot become a threat to our liberties.

Corporatism: Again, a word that I don't think that PeterS gets, or if he does, he is willfully distorting it. In the fascist state, corporatism is the division of sectors of the economy into government controlled organizations (corporations). These include trade unions and employers, who would speak for their entities and allegededly eliminate class conflicts, as well as reduce opposition and reward allies. Conservatives favor economic liberty.

Irrationalism: This is just how Progressives flatter themselves. Since they are the epitome of rational thought, anyone who disagrees with them must be irrational. The Soviets used this to great effect when they politicized their mental health system and determined that dissent was a form of mental illness.

Mythicism: This is a new one. Does it mean "mysticism" (in which case, we can cite loads of "mystical" hogwash from the left, starting with their Gaia worship, nutty fringe religions and obsessions)? Does it simply mean religious faith? Several conservatives here are non-believers, myself included (blame the bacon), so that doesn't apply. This is just silly.

Disdain for Liberalism and Communism: As communists have subverted liberalism, so that the two have become interchangeable on the left, along with Progressivism and assorted other euphemisms that they rediscover whenever their most recent label has been rendered toxic by their excesses, it is understandable to equate them. However, disdain for communism is not a fascist trait. Communists and Fascists were rivals, not opposites. Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, even stated this:

“Between us and the communists there are no political affinities but there are intellectual ones. Like you [communists], we consider necessary a centralized unitary state which imposes iron discipline and all persons, with this difference, that you reached this conclusion by way of the concept of class, and we by the way of the concept of nation.”

Richard Pipes, author of Communism: A History, identified a number of areas of agreement between fascism and communism:

Both the fascists and communists had a common enemy, which was liberal democracy with its reverence for civil rights, property, and peace.

Both the fascists and communists were totalitarian regimes that regarded human beings as expendable raw material for the construction of a new social order.

Both the fascists and communists tried to obliterate all distinctions between the state and the citizenry by penetrating and controlling every aspect of organized life.

Both the fascists and communists enjoyed a political monopoly and governed with the assistance of the security police, which were endowed with unrestricted powers.

Both the fascists and communists viewed pacifism with contempt.

So, if PeterS is still lurking, at least he will benefit from this explanation of his errors, and perhaps he may someday develop a less doctrinally leftist worldview, or at least better manners in expressing it.

Originally Posted by txradioguy

If you still were afforded posting privileges I'd ask you to show where they are different.

And even if you were here...it would be an impossible task since there is no difference.

Again with the blatant lies.
Making excuses for and trying to justify your blatant idiocy is typical Libtard crap.

PeterS doesn't necessarily know that they are lies. Remember, the Soviet propaganda machine has been spreading the lie that fascist=rightwing for decades, and most of our institutions follow that same line. At the same time, he also probably doesn't know the origins and mindset of the Progressive movement. Progressives believed in social Darwinism. They assumed that human existence was a series of forward movements towards an enlightened future, and that humanity would evolve, just as other species do. They believed that, as the enlightened vanguard, it was their duty to guide that evolution and jumpstart it. They were advocates of all manner of social engineering, owing a great deal to the ideas of Rousseau and Marx, but also to Darwin and Freud. They wanted eugenics, for example, but dropped that when the Nazis put the full program into practice, but before then, they had quite a run in the US:

Many early progresssives advocated eugenics, or human engineering, to purge society's gene pool of undesirable traits. In Looking Backward, socialist author Edward Bellamy mused about “race purification,” a fantasy shared by many utopian novelists. Indiana's state government in 1907 became the first in the modern world to codify eugenic principles, and more than two dozen additional American states soon followed suit. These states did not dictate the coupling of ideal mates, which could be called “positive eugenics.” Rather, they advocated “negative eugenics” – i.e., the sterilization of those harboring undesirable genetic makeups, precisely as Bellamy had advocated.

Eugenics was wholly compatible with the progressive era's faith in science, the future, the regulatory potential of the state, and human perfectibility. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution helped bankroll organizations that sought to advance eugenics. Among the more notable progressives to embrace the practice were the anarco-communist Emma Goldman, NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois, author H.G. Wells, political scientist Harold Laski, socialist reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, biology instructor/atheist Edward Aveling, economist John Maynard Keynes, playwright George Bernard Shaw, World Wildlife Fund founder Julian Huxley, sex theorist Havelock Ellis, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger, taking issue with the Church's view that eugenics was immoral because the souls of all people were equally valuable in the eyes of God, said:

“My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against the social welfare and race improvement. Assuming that God does want an increasing number of worshipers of the Catholic faith, does he also wantan increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshipers?”

In 1913, Brown University's progressive sociologist Lester Ward endorsed eugenics as a means of fighting “that modern scientific fatalism known as laissez-faire,” and of facilitating “the betterment of the human race.” “The end and the aim of the eugenicists cannot be reproached,” he expanded. “The race is far from perfect. Its condition is deplorable. Its improvement is entirely feasible, and in the highest degree desirable.”

Speaking on a related theme, the playwright George Bernard Shaw advocated the creation of a panel tasked with the duty of deciding who was, and who was not, worthy of being allowed to continue living. Said Shaw:

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

By 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted the progressive belief that the state ought to be empowered to determine who should and should not be permitted to reproduce. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court's progressive icon, wrote in 1915 that his "starting point for an ideal for the law" would be the "coordinated human effort ... to build a race." He elaborated:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for the crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Eugenics only became unpopular after the Holocaust gave us visual evidence of what the program looked like in fact, rather than abstract theory. But you can see the echoes of Nazism in Sanger's comments about the Church. This is one of the links between the Progressive left and the Fascist left. There are many others.

I really don't care about Manning but since his actions were against our government I would assume you would support him. I take it you don't...

This comment right here proves that people like Peter either don't want to understand conservatism or they do and just like to distort the facts to fit their view of what conservatives really are. It's like CNN the other day doing a story on why there are so many hate groups(I didn't get a chance to see the actual story as CNN was on at my eye doctor's office and I had to go to the examining room before the story came on but I can well imagine that of the so called 1300+ hate groups they were going to talk about 100% of them were going to be Tea Party related conservative groups). No where have conservatives ever said we were anti government. The only group who is completely anti government is the ultra leftist anarchist movement. Wanting smaller government in the way the Constitution painted out is not being anti government. What conservatives are anti government about is the fact that the government has grown to be a behemoth that has gotten too big to control. The government was created to serve the will of the people. Not the other way around and this is something idiots like Peter can't seem to wrap their puny brains around.

This comment right here proves that people like Peter either don't want to understand conservatism or they do and just like to distort the facts to fit their view of what conservatives really are. It's like CNN the other day doing a story on why there are so many hate groups(I didn't get a chance to see the actual story as CNN was on at my eye doctor's office and I had to go to the examining room before the story came on but I can well imagine that of the so called 1300+ hate groups they were going to talk about 100% of them were going to be Tea Party related conservative groups). No where have conservatives ever said we were anti government. The only group who is completely anti government is the ultra leftist anarchist movement. Wanting smaller government in the way the Constitution painted out is not being anti government. What conservatives are anti government about is the fact that the government has grown to be a behemoth that has gotten too big to control. The government was created to serve the will of the people. Not the other way around and this is something idiots like Peter can't seem to wrap their puny brains around.

Anarchists are inherently Right wing. A socialist who is calling himself an anarchist is delusional. They are incongruent for you cannot be a socialist without establishing the use of coercion and force on others. Anarchist's believe in free market and free association without coercion.

Totalitarianism/Collective is the far left and Anarchist/Voluntaryism is the far right. I thought you were a big fan of Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism?. He touches on it a bit and you should have gotten this from it. But I think someone like Feebmaster would be better at educating others about it.

I'll just add that I agree for the most part, but the founders had a deep distrust of government so much that they didn't want a Federal government. I'm for the smallest most unobtrusive government I can get. I do not believe there will ever be no government, but I'd not shed a tear if about 3/4 or it went away. I am indeed anti-government and it is indeed Conservative to be so. What we have today is nothing like what the founders envisioned.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown